[60] While this is the appellant’s view of how events unfolded
and how it treated Ms. Brake, it does not accord with the trial
judge’s findings of fact — findings which are fully supported
on the record.

[61] As the trial judge found, when the appellant offered
Ms. Brake the non-supervisory position as first assistant, with
“meaningfully inferior” benefits, it unilaterally made a substantial or fundamental change to her employment contract. In so
doing, it constructively dismissed her.

[62] In reaching this conclusion, the trial judge relied on the
Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Farber v. Royal Trust
Co., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846, [1996] S.C.J. No. 118. At para. 36 of
Farber, the Supreme Court explained that “a demotion, which
generally means less prestige and status, is a substantial change
to the essential terms of an employment contract that warrants
a finding that the employee has been constructively dismissed”.

[63] Although the trial judge did not refer to Potter v. New
Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 500,
[2015] S.C.J. No. 10, 2015 SCC 10, on the findings of the trial
judge, there would be no change in result.

The Potter test for constructive dismissal

[64] The test that Potter establishes for constructive dismissal
consists of two branches. Satisfaction of either branch is sufficient for a finding of constructive dismissal.

[65] The first branch of the Potter test has two steps. First, the
court must determine objectively whether a breach has occurred.
To do so, the court must ascertain whether the employer has
unilaterally changed the contract. If an express or an implied
term gives the employer the authority to make the change or if
the employee consents or acquiesces in it, the change is not a
unilateral act and will not constitute a breach. To qualify as a
breach, the change must also be detrimental to the employee.
Second, once it has been objectively established that a breach
occurred, the court must ask whether a reasonable person in the
same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment contract were being substantially
changed (Potter, at paras. 37-39).

[66] The second branch of the Potter test necessarily requires
a different approach. On this branch, constructive dismissal consists of conduct that, when viewed in light of all the circumstances, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the
employer no longer intended to be bound by the terms of the
contract (Potter, at para. 42).